MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123494392 · doi:10.1029/2004gl021315

Heavy ion mass loading of the geomagnetic field near the plasmapause and ULF wave implications

2005· article· en· W2123494392 on OpenAlexaff
B. J. Fraser, J. L. Horwitz, J. A. Slavin, Z. C. Dent, I. R. Mann

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlasmasphereIonPhysicsEarth's magnetic fieldMagnetosphereAtomic physicsField lineDiscontinuity (linguistics)GeophysicsElectronMagnetic fieldPlasmaElectron densityComputational physicsIonosphereNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The structure of the density discontinuity across the plasmapause is often based on electron and H + density profiles with the contribution of heavy ions (He + , O + etc) neglected. Electron and ion density measurements in this region may differ significantly due to the presence of heavy ions and it is important for the intercomparison of different datasets to understand these differences. Dynamics Explorer (DE‐1) magnetic field and plasma composition data have been used to compare heavy ion responses across the plasmapause and to calculate the mass loaded ion density (ρ) profiles. To illustrate this we investigate mass loading through radial profile variations in the Alfven velocity (V A ). Results show that the gradient in ρ and V A across the plasmapause is modified when mass loading due to multiple heavy ion species is included, particularly in the presence of the O + torus. Application to ultra‐low frequency (ULF) field line resonance is used as an example where the contribution from heavy ions smoothes out the expected ULF wave resonant frequency discontinuity at the plasmapause.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.329
Threshold uncertainty score0.402

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations103
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamicsFrench-language works237,207